Pay justification

Bromley boy · 17 Nov 2017

Darandio said:
Has to be said that you are going with form. I've seen this in many years of working in recruitment, those who don't have an NVQ often look down on those who do.

I don’t mean it like that - I certainly wouldn’t look down on someone for doing it - more that, at the time, I couldn’t see any obvious advantage to doing it.

It also isn’t offered as an option to many trainees (I believe my own TOC’s policy has changed on this recently).

RailUK Forums

dk1 · 17 Nov 2017

I was asked if wanted to take an NVQ a few years ago & my first response was 'do I get more money and/or time off to do it'? I was told 'no & no you are a train driver'. Now not that I ever had any intention to do the darn thing but what on earth would be in it for me if I could be bothered?

Bromley boy · 17 Nov 2017

al78 said:
I think it is more that some people have an opinion on how easy or difficult someones job is despite being clueless as to what that job involves*. If that someone else gets paid more than them they think it is unreasonable. Unfortunately people do love to make all sorts of assertions about subjects they are clueless about, and once an opinion is formed, it is set in concrete forever, and no amount of rational argument will persuade them that their precious opinion might be wrong. It is as though admitting they are wrong somehow destroys their entire credibility as a person forever.
.

Agree with all the above and it’s certainly something that rears its head on these forums!

It does seem that the train driver role gets a uniquely hard time, presumably because it’s quite visible, people (for whatever reason,
and invariably with absolutely no knowledge) perceive it’s a piece of p*ss and are aware that it’s pretty well paid.

You’ll never hear people complaining that signallers are “overpaid” (they certainly are not!) even though they can earn similar salaries to drivers, presumably because people aren’t as aware of the role’s existence.

HarleyDavidson · 17 Nov 2017

I know of people who have degrees in multiple disciplines, passed the tests for entry into the driving grade and yet when it came to the crunch, they thought they knew better and made the fundamental error of arguing with an examiner and failed their exams and were shown the door.

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you can argue with an examiner on your driving finals, what they say up the school is "Gospel" whilst you're learning, so if they say Black is White, then Black is White... End of!

dk1 · 17 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
Agree with all the above and it’s certainly something that rears its head on these forums!

It does seem that the train driver role gets a uniquely hard time, presumably because it’s quite visible, people (for whatever reason) You’ll never hear people complaining that signallers are “overpaid” (they certainly are not!) even though they can earn similar salaries to drivers, presumably because people aren’t as aware of the role’s existence.

Might also be something to do with the 'little boys want to be a train driver when they grow up' stigma. Oddly enough at the other end of the scale it's only a matter of time before you get asked if you've been involved in a suicide. No other job like it really.

dctraindriver · 17 Nov 2017

HarleyDavidson said:
I know of people who have degrees in multiple disciplines, passed the tests for entry into the driving grade and yet when it came to the crunch, they thought they knew better and made the fundamental error of arguing with an examiner and failed their exams and were shown the door.

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you can argue with an examiner on your driving finals, what they say up the school is "Gospel" whilst you're learning, so if they say Black is White, then Black is White... End of!

I totally agree with this.

However on the flip of that, we also know people without degrees who have also cocked it up.

A degree does not necessarily mean you are entitled to earn more than someone who does not have a degree. Some with degrees may look down at others without. That’s just arrogant and stupid.

I have a degree, used it, got bored of that career and here I am now driving a train. I think I’m worth the salary, degree or no degree this is a great job, however the responsibility both in and out the chair is not to be taken lightly.

ComUtoR · 17 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
I see where you’re coming from here, and there’s certainly nothing to lose by doing something that is offered,

Opportunity knocked, so I took it.

but do you think it would add more to a CV than (say) a period spent instructing or allowing trainees to “shadow”?

Yes.

It allows any, and every TOC to see that you have reached a specific and nationally recognized standard. It was independently audited and assessed and everything has been evidenced. 'shadowing' is good and shows that your DM has a degree of trust in you and shows responsibility etc. but there is no proof of what you did. In all honesty, how many just get sent home early ?

Everything you do in your role will have a benefit to your CV for sure and some things are clearly weighted in favor of another. Instructing is certainly something that would be weighted higher but you also achieve an NVQ because you are in that grade too. Mostly instructing would be worth more because this is an industry where experience is much more important than qualifications. There is also a benefit to the employer. If a higher grade role required an NVQ then it would save the cost if your candidate was already qualified.

I don't believe the NVQ should be taken in isolation either. Just because I have a qualification can be equally meaningless. It doesn't show who I am as a Driver, just that I have an NVQ.

Due to my age, I am of an era where there was a shift from experience to qualifications. I do not believe that having a qualification specifically justifies a higher wage. It denigrates those who are highly skilled in a role but not qualified in any way. Not only that, what about those roles whose qualifications are vocational by nature ? There is no 'train driving school' You just aren't able to go to college to study train driving then have a qualification that simply lets you out there driving. I know there is a movement towards such a concept but that will serve to push wages higher. Imagine how much you could command if you were already qualified. TOCs would need to increase wages to attract Drivers and at such a level as to not insult them.

Dieseldriver · 17 Nov 2017

dctraindriver said:
I totally agree with this.

However on the flip of that, we also know people without degrees who have also cocked it up.

A degree does not necessarily mean you are entitled to earn more than someone who does not have a degree. Some with degrees may look down at others without. That’s just arrogant and stupid.

I have a degree, used it, got bored of that career and here I am now driving a train. I think I’m worth the salary, degree or no degree this is a great job, however the responsibility both in and out the chair is not to be taken lightly.

Funnily enough, I spoke to a Driver yesterday about how he started on the Railway. He'd had a long career in the army and when he saw Train Driving jobs advertised he thought 'loads of money for sitting on your arse pressing buttons, I'll have some of that'.
He then openly admitted to me that had he really known what was involved with the job, he wouldn't have bothered filling in the application form.

mpthomson · 17 Nov 2017

skyhigh said:
Not trying to drag the thread off topic, but I completely agree with this. When I was in the BTP, I went to five fatalities in less than a year - that's bad, but nothing compared to what drivers must have to deal with. I think they entirely deserve their pay.

I'd use the example of soldiers in any recent conflict, many of whom saw a lot of distressing incidents involving death and dismemberment and some the more junior are on roughly £20k a year. I'm not starting a willy-waving contest with this, genuinely, I'm just pointing out that train drivers aren't the only group of employees who witness traumatic events (and in any case it won't be something that affects their salary). I'd also add that many of the soldiers I've seen professionally felt very guilty about what had happened, for a variety of reasons, in the same way that many drivers involved in an incident would.

Again, I'm not trying to reduce the perception of the impact on drivers in any way.

Bromley boy · 17 Nov 2017

HarleyDavidson said:
Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you can argue with an examiner on your driving finals, what they say up the school is "Gospel" whilst you're learning, so if they say Black is White, then Black is White... End of!

This is true, although the other side of the coin is that the railway training regime has some scope for improvement. Yes facts need to be learned but it aids understanding if some context can be given and if the background to rules and procedures can be explained.

One of the trainers on my rules course made the point that some of the more “old school” trainers have struggled with the change from training people who have been on the railway “man and boy” and unquestioningly accept what they are told, to people who have come from a range of backgrounds outside the industry and who adopt a more questioning, discursive approach to learning.

The point in my rules course where we were lied to about the existence of approach controlled signals was a particular low point!

pemma · 17 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
It’s not a definition of economic reality, it is economic reality. TOCs are not going to pay any more or less for a driver depending on whether or not they have a degree.

You misunderstand. I've not said train drivers should have a degree or need a degree. I'm saying for occupations where a degree is needed the salary should be suitably high enough because the applicants have done the time and expense of gaining the relevant skills prior to applying for the job.

Very, very few jobs “can’t be done by someone who isn’t qualified to [X] degree level”.

Invalid statement. For a large number of jobs either a degree is required or you need to have skills which you won't have if you've just left school and haven't done any further qualifications. Some job adverts specify educated to degree level or 1-2 years experience in similar role - those type of job adverts are a lot more common than adverts for someone without a degree or relevant experience.

Since when have train driver salaries prevented TOCs making a profit?

That question isn't relevant to what I said.

Dave1987 · 17 Nov 2017

edwin catflap said:
Hi I've applied to one but didn't get passed the first sift unfortunately

Well don't give up! Like I said previously the calibre of people being attracted to train driving is so high now that TOCs have the luxury of picking and choosing. I have heard of extremely well educated individuals becoming train drivers because the salary is at a level that is deemed adequate by those individuals. Now TOCs are attracting that calibre of candidate the salary is not likely to drop despite the best efforts of the likes of the Daily Mail. The driver trainers I know have all said that HR recruitment staff are besides themselves with joy at the number and quality of application they are now receiving because they can pick and choose exactly who they want. I would encourage you to keep applying. I sense a bit on envy and resentment at the fact you didn't get through the process.

Dave1987 · 17 Nov 2017

AlterEgo said:
Edwin, I wasn’t born yesterday. You’re not in the Army; at least, not now, and not as an officer.

If you were commissioned in 1991 and claim to be in charge of 30 soldiers, this makes you a Lieutenant, a rank you achieve after two years’ time served and this is not a merit-based promotion. You reach Captain after a further (on average) two years based on time or tours served - this is also not a meritocratic promotion. Someone commissioned 26 years ago should be knocking around Lt Col or above if they’re still in the Army.

This notwithstanding, an army officer wouldn’t ask someone to “justify their salary”, and even if they did, they’d use proper punctuation, like full stops and not conflating “past” and “passed”.

The minute I saw your OP I thought “bus driver” and I wasn’t far wrong.

How else can one explain a user with the exact same username (a rather unique one too!) posting on truck forums about the job, or referring to themselves as an “ex squaddie” on another forum?

Why don’t you just be honest?

I'd be interested to see the response to this.

sefton · 17 Nov 2017

edwin catflap said:
How do drivers justify their pay rate in comparison to other jobs?

Justify to who? The only people they have to justify it to are the train companies who pay their wages.

Are they 'worth it'? They are to the train company. Without them trains don't run and franchises get taken away and the directors don't get to drink champagne.

Why not pay so much in comparison to other 'similar' jobs. The answer is that the other jobs are not similar.

You can argue for ever about the difficulty and capabilities required to do the job, the working conditions, etc, and how they compare. But all that is irrelevant

The issue is the barrier to entry to the role. For train drivers that is exceptionally high; a significant period of training driven by H&S legislation, a strong union, the public anger if trains don't run.

Unless you did as Ronald Reagan did with the air traffic controllers it is in nobody's interest to rock the boat.

I could easily see that train drivers could push for £150k or more before anything serious would be done.

Bromley boy · 17 Nov 2017

jcollins said:
You misunderstand. I've not said train drivers should have a degree or need a degree. I'm saying for occupations where a degree is needed the salary should be suitably high enough because the applicants have done the time and expense of gaining the relevant skills prior to applying for the job.

I think you misunderstand the economics of how employers determine salaries.

Most employers want employees who can do the job at hand and will pay the commensurate salary to secure an employee holding whatever blend of skills and qualifications is deemed to be desirable. This is generally weighted far more towards experience than qualifications, other than for specific graduate schemes intended for those who have just graduated.

Employers do not decide to pay someone more simply because they have a degree they have paid for themselves, of itself. By contrast, once an employer has invested a six figure sum into training someone, they have a very clear economic justification for retaining that employee.

jcollins said:
Invalid statement. For a large number of jobs either a degree is required or you need to have skills which you won't have if you've just left school and haven't done any further qualifications. Some job adverts specify educated to degree level or 1-2 years experience in similar role - those type of job adverts are a lot more common than adverts for someone without a degree or relevant experience.

Generally, doing a degree doesn't give you any particular skills (unless you want a job in academia). It is an indication of academic ability in a particular area. A degree will be useful for getting onto a specific graduate training scheme. Once you have a few years relevant experience in any field employers rapidly cease to care about your academics - plenty of solicitors and accountants knocking about who don't have degrees.

jcollins said:
That question isn't relevant to what I said.

Isn't it? So what did you mean when you wrote the below text in your previous posting #49 (in particular the bit I have emboldened)?

jcollins said:
The 'economic reality' of the railways is without huge government subsides there wouldn't be trainee drivers, there would be train driver apprentices earning something like £200 a week and coming away with a NVQ at the end of their 18 month apprenticeship period. At that stage they'd be offered a reasonable salary e.g. £25,000 per annum - enough to make a train driver a more attractive role than others but not so much it will prevent the TOC making a profit.

Dave1987 · 17 Nov 2017

There do seem to be a few on here who are extremely envious of train drivers salaries because they went to university, racked up huge student debts, yet earn less than a train driver. Your envy should be redirected at politicians who believe that further education is a commodity to be traded for a price.

sefton · 17 Nov 2017

Dave1987 said:
There do seem to be a few on here who are extremely envious of train drivers salaries because they went to university, racked up huge student debts, yet earn less than a train driver. Your envy should be redirected at politicians who believe that further education is a commodity to be traded for a price.

Not sure it is envy, more questioning how we arrived at this situation.

hounddog · 17 Nov 2017

Dave1987 said:
There do seem to be a few on here who are extremely envious of train drivers salaries because they went to university, racked up huge student debts, yet earn less than a train driver. Your envy should be redirected at politicians who believe that further education is a commodity to be traded for a price.

There also seem to be more than a few drivers trying to deflect the question.

hounddog · 17 Nov 2017

sefton said:
Justify to who? The only people they have to justify it to are the train companies who pay their wages.

What about the taxpayers who subsidise those TOCs?

pemma · 17 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
Employers do not decide to pay someone more simply because they have a degree they have paid for themselves, of itself. By contrast, once an employer has invested a six figure sum into training someone, they have a very clear economic justification for retaining that employee.

Generally, doing a degree doesn't give you any particular skills (unless you want a job in academia). It is an indication of academic ability in a particular area. A degree will be useful for getting onto a specific graduate training scheme. Once you have a few years relevant experience in any field employers rapidly cease to care about your academics - plenty of solicitors and accountants knocking about who don't have degrees.

Actually by doing a degree you gain a number of transferable skills, as well as skills in a specific area. I'm not disagreeing that employers prefer experience over a degree but you seem to be ignoring the underlying problem that there are nowhere near enough apprenticeship or junior jobs for everyone aged 18 to take one - probably only 10-20% of school leavers would be able to get them. In the science and technology fields, in particular, higher education can trump experience as those with experience don't always have up-to-date skills and knowledge.

Isn't it? So what did you mean when you wrote the below text in your previous posting #49 (in particular the bit I have emboldened)?

You're going off a tangent because I suggested an advert for a train driver saying a salary of £25,000 after 18 months of training would attract people to apply. Let's face it you know that's reality so want to make pointless arguments to prevent that being discussed.

Bromley boy · 17 Nov 2017

Dave1987 said:
There do seem to be a few on here who are extremely envious of train drivers salaries because they went to university, racked up huge student debts, yet earn less than a train driver. Your envy should be redirected at politicians who believe that further education is a commodity to be traded for a price.

Well we have been told what we are worth on this thread - £25k and £200 per week for a trainee is reasonable, apparently. In the opinion of someone from outside the industry who has never done the job. Of course the reality of what we are paid is different.

sefton said:
Not sure it is envy, more questioning how we arrived at this situation.

Because a train driving licence is far more economically valuable to employers than a degree. Especially as a great many degrees these days are "Mickey Mouse" and frankly a waste of the paper they're written on - plenty of graduates working in call centres, thousands of pounds in debt, who would have been better off learning a trade.

I'm a train driver who happens to have a degree, so I'm going to ask for a raise on Monday.

pemma · 17 Nov 2017

sefton said:
Not sure it is envy, more questioning how we arrived at this situation.

Indeed. A long time ago I think it was the case that if you left school for public sector work you got trained in how to the job and effectively got the job until you retired or couldn't do it anymore. The rail industry seems to still be a bit like that but with the complication that it's privatised so, unlike public sector work there's a risk you might choose to leave for another employer which is a problem public sector British Rail didn't have.

pemma · 17 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
Well we have been told what we are worth on this thread - £25k and £200 per week for a trainee is reasonable, apparently. In the opinion of someone from outside the industry who has never done the job. Of course the reality of what we are paid is different.

I'm sure Network Rail's apprentices would think that is a reasonable offer. They get £182 a week, plus a £1265 bonus on completion: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/careers/apprenticeships/

Because a train driving licence is far more economically valuable to employers than a degree.

Well over 99.9% of employers have no need for train drivers. I think if you said that to MD of a business I used to work for (who's a qualified engineer) he might call you a banker if he's feeling nice.

dk1 · 17 Nov 2017

hounddog said:
What about the taxpayers who subsidise those TOCs?

I'm a train driver & a tax payer :lol:

Bromley boy · 17 Nov 2017

jcollins said:
Actually by doing a degree you gain a number of transferable skills, as well as skills in a specific area. I'm not disagreeing that employers prefer experience over a degree but you seem to be ignoring the underlying problem that there are nowhere near enough apprenticeship or junior jobs for everyone aged 18 to take one - probably only 10-20% of school leavers would be able to get them. In the science and technology fields, in particular, higher education can trump experience as those with experience don't always have up-to-date skills and knowledge.

Many degrees - classics, history, law, mathematics are academic subjects rather than specialising in any professional field (note I include law within in that).

I don't disagree but with respect we are not talking about the problem of school leavers (and graduates) being unable to find jobs. We are talking about the economic reasons underpinning the salary for a particular job.

jcollins said:
You're going off a tangent because I suggested an advert for a train driver saying a salary of £25,000 after 18 months of training would attract people to apply. Let's face it you know that's reality so want to make pointless arguments to prevent that being discussed.

I'm not going off at a tangent.
You've made two contradictory statements in your previous postings:
(1) you said train drivers salaries prevent TOCs making a profit
(2) I asked since when was that the case
(3) you said said my question was irrelevant to your first statement. Huh?!?!

As for your last comment, I'm not disputing that you could find people willing to apply for any job for almost any given salary level. However whether those people are a. able to do the job and b. Willing and able to do it for the long term are two different things.

I bet your boss could find plenty of people willing to do your job for a lower salary than you're being paid, so that statement is completely meaningless.

I'm actually at a loss as to what your point is on this thread other than to state that train drivers "reasonable" salary is £25k and people with degrees *should* be paid more because they've paid for their degrees themselves.

AlterEgo · 17 Nov 2017

jcollins said:
I'm sure Network Rail's apprentices would think that is a reasonable offer. They get £182 a week, plus a £1265 bonus on completion: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/careers/apprenticeships/

That’s not for driving trains though, so I’m not sure how it’s relevant.

Bromley boy · 17 Nov 2017

jcollins said:
Well over 99.9% of employers have no need for train drivers. I think if you said that to MD of a business I used to work for (who's a qualified engineer) he might call you a banker if he's feeling nice.

My point (obviously) is that in many areas a professional qualification is more valuable to employers than a generic degree.

For TOCs a qualification as a train driver is more important than a degree. For solicitors a practicing certificate is more important than a degree. For pilots an ATPL and log book hours are more important than a degree. I could go on.

I'll ask you again, what do you do and how much are you paid?

And what qualifies you to know what an appropriate wage for a train driver is?

I'll draw this to a close by observing that you've made a most bizarre series of postings that seem expose a bit of a chip on your shoulder about what train drivers are paid. I suggest you apply for the job yourself if you think it's such a cushy number...

pemma · 17 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
you said train drivers salaries prevent TOCs making a profit

No I didn't! I said a £25,000 salary would be attractive to those outside the industry but "not so much it will prevent the TOC making a profit." I didn't say what level would prevent a TOC making a profit.

However, I did TOCs would struggle to pay trainee drivers proper salaries (opposed to apprenticeship ones) without government subsides. (The Network Rail link I provided gives an idea of what an apprenticeship scheme would be like for British Rail if they still existed.)

You've somehow interpreted that as meaning TOCs don't make a profit. Are you actually Mick Cash?

pemma · 17 Nov 2017

AlterEgo said:
That’s not for driving trains though, so I’m not sure how it’s relevant.

It's for the rail industry though, despite Bromley Boy thinking those kind of roles didn't exist in the industry.

Fred Dinenage · 17 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
I'll ask you again, what do you do and how much are you paid?

Well, i'm in full popcorn mode now....

Are you going to answer Bromley boy's question?

Pay justification

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member